Too be honest not really, at least not to me. Rotor and Sally always had a personality to me and while they weren't that obvious or well written in the past I think Ian manage to really flesh them down and give them some more depth. I mean have you read the recent ''Sparkle of Life?

I also hope this doesn't offend, sorry if it does, but the Naruto and MLP references and comparisons come of as silly (that's not the correct word so I mean it makes the article seem less-serious. Don't know how well to explain it awk sorry!) since neither of those shows are anything like the comic books. Naruto is a Shonen Manga/Anime intended for teenagers that follows the Shonen Tropes while MLP is a fun show intended for little girls with clever writing and harmless jokes. Sonic the Hedgehog is a comic book series for all ages packed with action and a bit of humor now and again, These shows and medias are very different from one another and so these comparisons fall flat and aren't convincing.

You also used Boom as a comparison and don't get me wrong I love Boom but Boom is a comedy series and most comedy series relies on characters with a one note personality, Boom is again an example of this where the traits are played of for laughs and repeated. ( Knuckles is dumb, Sticks is Paranoid, Eggman has a huge ego, ect) this works for Boom. But since the comic has more dramatic and action in the stories the characters need to be more then just one dimensional. From what I took of your article I sort of got the feeling you are more used to characters with repetitive and obvious character traits then characters with more layers. That's just my opinion trough I don't agree with you but you did put a lot of effort into the article and I respect that and your view.

Edit: Don't let my post scare you! keep up the writing! :D While I dont agree with a lot of your views you do go into great detail and work hard on your articles. That's impressive!

Last edited by Kellox on Wed Feb 25, 2015 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Er, maybe it would have nice if you made an introductory post or something. This seems a bit like you're trying to promote your dA journal, rather than sincerely engaging in a conversation about the strengths & weaknesses of Archie Sonic's writing.

I read the journal anyway but I'm not sure I understood most of your comments/complaints. While I don't think Cream is as prominent a franchise chara as she was back in the Sonic X years, she's definitely had important game roles after Sonic Heroes. She's the one who taught Emerl about sadness in Sonic Battle.

She also explained to him that fighting can hurt people's feelings, & being pugilistic is not the only option (though it is important to fight on friends behalf if they are being attacked or otherwise vulnerable). Emerl gains some compassion from Cream's story, he doesn't want her to cry anymore, so he adjusts his behavior.

Big & Cream are not as prominent in the reboot as some other charas, but they're still useful, still being developed. Big had a sweet moment in Spark of Life explaining why he likes NICOLE, what qualities he considers important. Cream's had some good comedic moments such as trying to work Rotor's coffee machine or being shocked by Honey's "cheating" at a tournament. I'm sure she'll also have roles on field missions at some point but it does make sense given her youthfulness + her personality that she would stay at Sky Patrol more often than Sonic or Tails would.

~Other franchise comparisons~Also you are way overthinking MLP if you consider Celestia to a magnificent b*stard. She's a teacher who prefers to wait & see what her pupils will do, maybe give them a gentle nudge in the right direction, but she really wants her students to be able to solve problems on their own. Dunno if you follow the MLP comics, but Spike & Celestia's Friends Forever Team Up does a good job of explaining why Celestia acts the way she does. The MLP comics have also given more chances for Celestia & Luna to play off each other, as well as a nice backstory moment regarding Celestia's devotion to an elderly unicorn teacher.

ffs, Celestia is not David Xanatos, Lex Luthor, Hiruma Youichi, or Emperor Palpatine. She isn't a (possibly evil) chessmaster, she's just a kindly mentor who doesn't want to be a Deus Ex Machina. So she waits in the wings instead of magicking every problem away. Whoop dee.

Kellox wrote:Too be honest not really, at least not to me. Rotor and Sally always had a personality to me and while they weren't that obvious or well written in the past I think Ian manage to really flesh them down and give them some more depth.

Ok, I avoided using words like "depth", "dimension", and "layers" mainly because these words are thrown around alot without every being defined and barely have any definition. However, going by your use, I'm going to assume that you mean that they have more than one character trait. Here is the thing, in order to have more than one character trait, you have to have at least one character trait and all I am asking for is one consistent character trait or a consistent profile.

Sally and Rotor, along with 2 and a half upcoming characters all have the same problem of not having that well defined profiles. Nothing about them outside of being straight men for Sonic to bounce off of or talking lumps of clay that move the plot, is ever established. We never learn about how they view life or how confront a conflict outside of just doing it. They have no unique mannerisms, no personal in story character conflicts, and no goal or wants outside of betting the baddie of the day.

Really, the only way anyone can see these guys having character is what they stretch or project on to them.

2.

Kellox wrote:I also hope this doesn't offend, sorry if it does, but the Naruto and MLP references and comparisons come of as silly (that's not the correct word so I mean it makes the article seem less-serious. Don't know how well to explain it awk sorry!) since neither of those shows are anything like the comic books. Naruto is a Shonen Manga/Anime intended for teenagers that follows the Shonen Tropes while MLP is a fun show intended for little girls with clever writing and harmless jokes. Sonic the Hedgehog is a comic book series for all ages packed with action and a bit of humor now and again, These shows and medias are very different from one another and so these comparisons fall flat and aren't convincing.

Naruto and MLP are also lauded for being open to all ages so that doesn't work. But just because the target demo is different, doesn't change the fact about the story and character elements that both series use. Also, I didn't compare this to Naruto, I only used Naruto to establish a base line for what a useless character is. I did compare this to MLP because everyone loves to compare these 2 franchises. Heck, there are entire groups dedicated to collecting works with these 2 together.

With the Sonic Boom, like I said I'm just looking for at least one consistent character trait. Yeah Sonic Boom is made to be comedic, but it still establishes who the characters are. Besides I only compared this to Sonic Boom wondering why Flynn has this problem.

Besides the direct comparison I made was to the other characters in this cast who don't have this problem anywhere near as extreme as these 5 do.

But by this logic, I can't compare this series to anything.

Last edited by laviarray on Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

Yeah, I will admit how it might come off that way, but I didnt want to set up anyone's expectations about what would the journal be about but I keep the intro idea in mind for the next part. However, I will say I was trying to start a conversation about it, not just plug my journal, which I dont get paid by the view for so the only thing I get out of it is the conversation.

For me, I don't believe in complimenting something just to be neutral, if someone wants to say something, whether it be positive or negative, it doesn't have to be counter balanced.

The point of this article was to talk about the weaknesses in the character writing in the main cast of this comic. I started off with talking about Big and Cream, not because they have never had moments of contribution, but because I was wondering why are they adding 2 more characters to the cast. Yes, they have had moments of comedy and emotion, but outside of that, what is the narrative point to having these guys around as essentially leads when there are already 8 characters that still need to be developed. If Cream cant do anything to move the action and plot forward because of her age that is not going to change, then why have her around?

To the MLP issue. While I know about the comics, they are written by different people, with different goals and ideas in mind and are usually written without much thought to the other's actions. So I am not going to count their actions, unless they are referenced in the show, which is what I was referring to.

While I should have stated that the "magnificent @#$%" was not my opinion, just opinions I have heard about her, it doesn't change the fact about Celestia essentially being a plot director.

So many of her actions in the story are only there to start a conflict or to increase tension. Yeah, Magical Mystery Cure retconned it to being her saying that she was trying to be a hands off teacher, running the risk of putting other ponies lives in danger, but almost everything she does is made to start or increase the conflict for no other reason than the script said so.

1) Why didn't she tell Twilight that Nightmare Moon was real or get her ready in any capacity?2) Why did she give Twilight 2 tickets to the Gala, after she knew she had just made 5 friends?3) Why did she tell Twilight to not ask for help in the Crystal empire?4) Why did she need Discord freed at that moment and not stay around to help?5) Why send Twilight a dangerous book without warning her that the magic can switch cutie marks, and does put lives at risk? (Rarity weather)6) Why did she tell Twilight to keep their powers a secret from her friends, even though Tirek could have easily figured it out once he got to the castle?

Again they do try to give something of a reason but they usually are there to excuse her putting a unnecessary handicap on Twilight and crew for no reason other that to prep Twilight for a role that she didn't even fill until a year afterward outside of their control.

Well aside from the fact that MLP and Naruto are intended for a different target audience then Sonic The Hedgehog you don't go into a whole lot of detail in the comparison to much, you assume the reader has read/watched Mlp and Naruto and agree with you on the characters. I like MLP and I dislike Naruto but even I had to raise an eye brow at your comparison since it just didn't really explain things to well and neither convinced me to agree.And while lots of people compare these two series (MLP/Sonic. ) It still doesn't mean they are the same. I mean there are also fan bases and groups who compare and put Five Nights At Freddy's with Sonic and MLP material.) The two latter being oh so different from a horror indie franchise.

Again I have to disagree with you on the Sally and Rotor thing. One of Rotor's main traits is that he a geek his love for technology also developed his friendship with Tails. Unlike Tails however he has a more pragmatic around mathers and wants missions to be done as fast as possible and he is shown to be rather shy anti-Social and fine being with himself. but still caring for others. Which differs him from characters like Tails who is like a little brother to Sonic. Rotor also unlike the rest of the cast is a strong swimmer which doesn't make him your typical geek who isn't lacks strength because he has to be the smart one. I find this pretty clever. The fact that he is a talented swimmer offers him more traits that makes him better at something then Sonic the main character.

Sally is an tomboy-princess who is shown to prefer being in control and showing to panic easily, stress or lose it when she something goes wrong under her command. As a working graphic designer I can relate to this when it comes to deadlines or when my team is awaiting for me to make the final decision. The fact that she is a strong leading female character that sometimes needs to be saved or saves someone is something else I enjoy about her character because she doesn't fall under the stereotype of ACTION girl or Female in distress. There are a lot of scenes where we see how Sally views life and how about it is that she is missing on a lot of fun stuff (which Sonic is foil to her.) I think the story ''Stargazing'' is one of the best examples of this. Losing it might make her look like a weak leader but it does show how much responsibility she puts on herself with the idea that one of her friends might get hurt because of her mistakes. (which is shown once again in one of the recent issues where she breaks down crying hating herself for falling so easily for Eggman's trap)

I still get the flow and feeling that you don't think a character has any traits unless they aren't overly obvious or a standard or don't have a ability that / power that defines them as a sort of super hero gimmick, Which is the same feeling I get with your other reviews and articles as well. To me you are nitpicking because the characters aren't to simple or easily defined. Í just dont agree with that way of storytelling if Sally was the typical STRONG ACTION FEMALE character that never shows emotions, or weaknesses and Rotor the Geek who doesn't do any stuff outside from geeking out like they were in the older comics I would have never liked them today.

Again these are all matters of opinions so I think we have to agree to disagree.

I noticed in a comment that you were a reluctant to post here and I didn't want to come a off as to negative, we might not agree but that shouldn't stop you from posting. I just can't really get with any of your reviews personally.

Your writing has helped me realise various specific details that bother me about the characters, but I actually think the problems you bring up are only the surface of the character writing problems.

Various people have cited various elements, like character derailment, inconsistency, lack of 'personality', but the real problem is how the characters are structured at their core.

The core of a character should be their beliefs, their temperament, their emotions - all of those elements and more - and the interactions that these elements have with each other. They need to be interlinked. The author establishes these elements in the character, then references the internal interactions to find out how the characters are likely to react in any given scenario. In a way, the characters should be acting 'independently' of the author. They have their own internal reasoning, thanks to the interactions happening in their core. For example- in Sonic Rush, Blaze is fiercely proud and independent, and because of that, feels like her identity is under attack when Sonic ‘intrudes’ on her mission. She gets angry and eventually attacks him, in an attempt to defend her responsibility, her identity as lone guardian of the sol emeralds. THAT is reasoning that the writer has derived from Blaze's core beliefs and emotions. The reasoning has its own internal logic. They decided on who Blaze was and what she held at her core, then referred to those elements to come up with her likely reaction to Sonic's actions. Character writing 101. Character reasoning makes the plot.

The test for determining the presence of internal reasoning is simple. You ask this question: ‘Why did they say/do/think that?’ Investigate. Is the reasoning behind their behaviour apparent, or hinted at, in the story itself? If it isn’t, ask another: ‘What else is going on in their head internally that might give rise to this behaviour?’ If the material offers nothing there either, you’ve probably found an instance of what I like to call ‘putting’. The behaviour has been put on the character; it hasn’t arisen from any internal reasoning. The reasoning is ‘external’ to the character; it comes from what the author wants, rather than what the character might hypothetically do. It’s important to read the material cold- you cannot start using your own interpretations or ideas, you can only look at the material itself. If there really is nothing to explain the character behaviour, if it’s ooc, and never gets explained, it’s probably putting.

With the comic, I come across unexplained behaviour quite often. I’ve crunched the (post-160) comic through a lot of questioning and come to the conclusion that there’s a lot of putting. The characters sort of fall apart, as soon as they’re scrutinised more closely. Just pick any instance that bothers you and put it through those questions. The amount of gaps and missing links might just bowl you over. Loose, basic ideas about what the characters feel and how they act float around at a surface level and may be partially referenced, but they have no depth beyond that. No deeper reasoning, no structured core for development to link into, no real feeling that they’re like people. Hence, the ambiguities that people argue about, the fact that nothing sticks, the lack of character development, the apparent ooc behaviour, the wildly varying opinions on the comic, and the feeling of dissatisfaction that I walk away with after I’ve read an issue. Internal reasoning is virtually non-existent, so the characters feel empty. Just gather up everything a character is made up of, for yourself, ask questions about everything they are. You'll reveal all the gaps and missing links.

I want to read about characters who I can get invested in, characters who seem to be ‘independent’. Characters who behave like real people and grow like they do. The comic’s characters lack this core that’s crucial to good character writing, and therefore lack what’s crucial to audience satisfaction. They’re treated like puppets, and I know that not many of the comic’s fans are going to want to accept this, because they are invested in the characters. They could be great, they have lots of potential, and I desperately want to like them too, but as long as they’re written this way my feelings will be fairly non-committal.

Rotor has recently gotten some personality in "Champions" where we see he has different priorities than Sally when it comes to how to save the world. He doesn't seem to care about how the world sees him, as long as he can get the job done. He was quite eager to resort to stealing and making the FFs look like crooks and looters in order to ensure that they got the Chaos Emerald. This puts him in opposition to Sally, who wants to not destroy their integrity as heroes. since Sally showed a similar concern with the crystal caves (she didn't want to destroy the caves just to ensure her team's safety), this hopefully means that Rotor and Sally will have these personalities for awhile to come.

As for what Kellox said about Sally being a "tomboy Princess" I'll have to disagree. The comic may have claimed that she was a tomboy princess, but really, what traits has she shown that has been boy-like? I mean we're living in a world where gender rules are being changed at a rapid rate, and the traits that Sally has shown are no longer considered something exclusive to male-children. Is it related to how she rejects her roles given to her as a princess? Really, we can't tel how males in her position are supposed to act because Max was a terrible king and Elias wasn't exactly interested in fulfilling his role as the firstborn male, either.

And, of course, if we look at the current continuity, Sally isn't trying to go against her genderroles, in fact, she plainly asks her father for permission to continue to be a freedom fighter. Unlike previous Sally, she seems much more interested in being a princess and all that entails, but knows she is needed elsewhere and sacrifices that life for the life she feels she must lead for the betterment of her people. Unlike Rotor, who doesn't care about how he appears, Sally is very much interested in being a role model.

One could also argue, that the freedom fighters were the only family she had with her father gone. Which makes her very protective and fears loss. Also, it's a good reason why she beats herself if she puts them in harm's way.

Sally's is more of a mother goose / big sister in the reboot than being tomboyish. She's take a big role of not only being a princess, but also making sure everyone stays alive during the mission. Push comes to shove she'll be doing the issue #230 more often because she'll rather sacrifice herself than go through the drama of losing her FF family. Not that I want her to be written that way, but it makes her a great hero a.k.a role model of bravery just like Sonic. Remember that quick save she did to support Tails in the first issue of Spark of Life? She'll go to the extreme to make sure everyone is safe.

Being a tomboy & being overprotective don't have to be mutually exclusive traits. Since MLP:FiM has already been mentioned as a frame of reference Applejack is both a tomboy (good at sports, not usually concerned w/ table manners or getting muddy, outdoorsy, strong work ethic) & an overprotective big sister (to Applebloom's chagrin.)

nu252 Sally is protective of Cream, NICOLE, etc. She's also physically active, dresses in practical clothing, has appreciation for caves/natural environments. Sal's not the most tomboyish cliche ever, but she's got some tomboyish traits.